JUDGMENT 1. - The accused petitioner along with others was convicted under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'; for contravention of clause (3) of the Rajasthan Foodgrains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order, 1959 (hereinafter called`the order') and was sentenced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The accused petitioner alongwith Gyanchand preferred appeal No. 67 of 1971 before the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara. The other accused persons also preferred appeals but no appeal was preferred by accused Bhaironsingh. The learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner whereas the appeal of others was allowed. 2. The facts of the case out of which revision arises are thus : To prevent the activities of smugglers of food grains including gramme, a police party was deployed on the Rajasthan Gujarat border in the night intervening 30 and 31 December, 1976. It consisted of constables Khatra PWI, Savij PW 2 and Birma PW 3 and others. At about 2.30 in the night, it was noticed that a truck was going towards Gujarat Border. Its No. was RJQ 2984. It was stopped at the border within five miles belt and it was noticed that there were 64 begs of gram me. Thus, the truck was apprehended within internal border area. It was also noticed that the accused petitioner was sitting in police uniform just by the side of the driver and he is said to have given out that the bags of gramme in the truck were of one `Foodsa' and that the party should not check it. He is also said to have offered Rs. 3000/- to the police party as gratification other than legal re-numeration but the party did not agree. It is alleged that the accused ran away. 3. The accused was tried along with others and as already stated earlier, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. His appeal too was dismissed. 4. There can be no dispute that the accused was sitting in the truck in police uniform and in the truck, there were 64 bags of gramme. `Internal Border Area' has been defined in section 2 (bb) of the Order as it stood on the day of occurrence. His appeal too was dismissed. 4. There can be no dispute that the accused was sitting in the truck in police uniform and in the truck, there were 64 bags of gramme. `Internal Border Area' has been defined in section 2 (bb) of the Order as it stood on the day of occurrence. It reads as under, - "2(bb) In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires, `Internal Border Area' means the area within the State of Raj. lying ten miles belt all along the border of that State adjoining the State of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra and Gujarat". Under Clause (3) of the aforesaid Order, no person could transport or attempt to transport or abet the transport of food grains (a) to any place in the internal border area to any place outside that area or (b) from any place in the internal border area to any other place in that area; except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or any officer authorised by that Government in this behalf. There is also evidence that the truck came from the side of Buliakot (within the State of Rajasthan in Banswara) and was seen taking a turn towards Gujarat. When the police party tried to stop it, the truck did not stop and the police party had to fire. As the tyre was punctured, the truck had to stop. There is material on record that the accused petitioner was in police uniform in the truck and wanted the police party to let the truck go as it belonged to one `Foodsa'. The contention of the learned Advocate is that there is no material on record that the truck was apprehended with 64 bags of gramme within internal border area as defined in 2(bb) of the Order. But this argument has no force because there is sufficient material on record that the place where the truck was found with gramme bags was within three to four miles and as such was within ten-mile belt as defined in the definition of `Internal Border Area. To my mind it will not make any difference whether there are other places within Rajasthan where the truck was apprehended and any way bifurcated to any place of Rajasthan. Under cl. To my mind it will not make any difference whether there are other places within Rajasthan where the truck was apprehended and any way bifurcated to any place of Rajasthan. Under cl. (3) of the Order, the transport, attempt to transport or abetment of transport of food grains including gramme was prohibited in the `Internal Border Area' from one place to another in the `Internal Border Area' as also from any place outside that area. Admittedly, the accused petitioner and others were not having any permit for the transport of 64 bags of gramme issued by either the State Government or any officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf. Thus, it can be said that the accused petitioner was rightly convicted under section 3/7 of the Act for contravention of clause 3(a) of the order. It appears that it was under the surveillance of the accused petitioner, a constable, that the smuggling activities were going at the time when the truck was apprehended. This is really a serious matter. One responsible Protector of law was thus responsible for its contravention. 5. Merely because the petitioner has lost the job as a result of this case and the incident took place in the year 1966, I do not find any extenuating circumstances, moreso, as already stated earlier, the protector of law himself contravened it. 6. In the result, I hereby dismiss this revision petition. The accused is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds to undergo the sentence awarded or any remaining part thereof. In case the accused does not surrender, the trial court shall take steps to get the accused apprehended so that he undergoes the sentence awarded or any remainder thereof.Revision Dismissed. *******